Photo 888

Great idea Steve. I'm actually currently working on integrating a popular learning and classroom engine into GnH site called "Moodle". Its a package used by many schools and colleges.

I'm hoping that with the help of that package we can start some learning support for topics. Perhaps photography and other similar topics.

That's one of my next site related projects.

crystalcross wrote: I would have to agree with you. I doubt seriously that most images taken with a camera especially digital will reveal a orb which is paranormal in nature. From a pure scientific point of view (you knew I had to go there, right?) the amount of energy required to create spontaneous luminescence is pretty great. That normally happens when the gas or vapor is excited to a state where it becomes a plasma. In physics terms the electrons become charged and go into a hyper-excited outer valence state, and as they return to their normal state they give off photons thus creating the light you see.

Now, when that happens you'll see the luminescence with the naked eye as well.
Although some gasses have discharge frequencies which are in the UV or IR range, most gasses which you find in air also have visible components. So likely you would see a visible component.

So that would leave a question, what if the discharge happens so fast that you can't see it with your naked eye. Good point, but the likelihood or probability goes way down. The likelihood of a spontaneous orb event that happens faster than the eye can respond to (which is about 1 1/15 of a second) and at the same instant that the shutter of the camera snaps (which is generally in the neighborhood of 1/20th of a second or less) is increasingly less likely.

So, what does all this boil down to? That there are no orbs? No, I don't think that's what we're saying at all. At least that's not what I am saying. I think there very much is such a thing as a true paranormal orb. But, if you find one, chances are pretty great that the first time you know about it will NOT be when you look at the picture. But rather you will have taken the picture because you saw it with your naked eye. And if anything, the use of a flash will cause the orb to not show up on the picture since the light from the flash will far outshine any source of light from an orb.

There certainly is a place for still photography in paranormal research. Especially if its extra-spectral photography, meaning infrared or ultraviolet. And most certainly if the photograph is taken with multiple successive frames, and preferably without a flash.

I must admit that one of the BEST still photographs I ever saw of a paranormal subject is one taken by DementedWarlock and IrishEyes at one of their first investigations in a cemetery. It was a sequence of images which showed a man-shaped full body vapor that moved in the background.

Very well said CC, and yes, I too agree that there are in rare instances paranormal orbs that exist. I would also like to add that many photos can be taken using a long exposure technique that can bring results; that is, if you are using a camera with the capability.

In the future, there is much we can cover regarding photographs and through trial and error, we can work to accomplish the creation of a final image that will take people's breaths away. I'm talking about all of us on this forum learning techniques that can in turn bring about a lot of change as well as education to the world.

I would have to agree with you. I doubt seriously that most images taken with a camera especially digital will reveal a orb which is paranormal in nature. From a pure scientific point of view (you knew I had to go there, right?) the amount of energy required to create spontaneous luminescence is pretty great. That normally happens when the gas or vapor is excited to a state where it becomes a plasma. In physics terms the electrons become charged and go into a hyper-excited outer valence state, and as they return to their normal state they give off photons thus creating the light you see.

Now, when that happens you'll see the luminescence with the naked eye as well.
Although some gasses have discharge frequencies which are in the UV or IR range, most gasses which you find in air also have visible components. So likely you would see a visible component.

So that would leave a question, what if the discharge happens so fast that you can't see it with your naked eye. Good point, but the likelihood or probability goes way down. The likelihood of a spontaneous orb event that happens faster than the eye can respond to (which is about 1 1/15 of a second) and at the same instant that the shutter of the camera snaps (which is generally in the neighborhood of 1/20th of a second or less) is increasingly less likely.

So, what does all this boil down to? That there are no orbs? No, I don't think that's what we're saying at all. At least that's not what I am saying. I think there very much is such a thing as a true paranormal orb. But, if you find one, chances are pretty great that the first time you know about it will NOT be when you look at the picture. But rather you will have taken the picture because you saw it with your naked eye. And if anything, the use of a flash will cause the orb to not show up on the picture since the light from the flash will far outshine any source of light from an orb.

There certainly is a place for still photography in paranormal research. Especially if its extra-spectral photography, meaning infrared or ultraviolet. And most certainly if the photograph is taken with multiple successive frames, and preferably without a flash.

I must admit that one of the BEST still photographs I ever saw of a paranormal subject is one taken by DementedWarlock and IrishEyes at one of their first investigations in a cemetery. It was a sequence of images which showed a man-shaped full body vapor that moved in the background.

crystalcross wrote: Another Orb. Oh how I long for the day when an orb isn't the result of flash photography or a bright light in the image.

Concentric circles, non-self-illuminating, overlays the image rather than reflects off the background.

All classic signs of a dust or particle orb. I've taken the blue channel since it showed the greatest detail. And enhanced to show the concentric circles which are a dead give-away that its dust or particle related.

Agreed. In my humble opinion, I would like to see the day when the internet is no longer inundated with orb photos that folks are hoping is spiritual when in fact, is the result of dust. This would eliminate 99% of them.

I'm not trying to take the excitement away from folks during their investigations. However, as a photographer, I can say that spirits don't need to show up in the form of an orb; and don't, at least, most of the time [in my opinion]. That's why when I open up a photo with an orb, I get bored and move on to something else quickly because when it comes to the para[normal], I get moved by something that inspires. If fact, I don't even need a photo with a spirit in it to inspire me; just something that grabs my attention and forces me into in to become involved. Just my 2 cents.

It's the ghost of that pizza I ate last week...

Just as an addendum, there is an EXCELLENT Wikipedia article covering orbs and flash photography.

Backscatter (photography) - Wikipedia

Another Orb. Oh how I long for the day when an orb isn't the result of flash photography or a bright light in the image.

Concentric circles, non-self-illuminating, overlays the image rather than reflects off the background.

All classic signs of a dust or particle orb. I've taken the blue channel since it showed the greatest detail. And enhanced to show the concentric circles which are a dead give-away that its dust or particle related.

Discuss photo: Photo 888